I feel that the first amendment should only protect people up to a certain extent. For example, in Skokie, Illinois, Neo-Nazis marched with posters that had swastikas on them and had on Nazi uniforms posing a psychological threat to Jews. If any form of speech can provoke others to retaliate, then it can be considered as hate speech which shouldn't be defended. It's not okay for a group to say they're going to start a riot and kills cops because they feel like police have some type of dilemma towards them. The ACLU feel like ANY SPEECH IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I totally disagree.

I disagree with you to a very large extent, because in you're beginning argument, you stated "It's not okay for a group to say they're going to start a riot and kills cops because they feel like police have some type of dilemma towards them" as an example. This, is very obviously a threat, and should not be protected under the 1st, you're blatantly threatening someone. I agree with you here.

However, this is completely differently to what you stated, as you were against " Neo-Nazis marched with posters that had swastikas on them and had on Nazi uniforms posing a psychological threat to Jews". You are saying that just because a group of people stand up and are public with an ideology that they believe in, than it should be illegal, and that it is a "psychological threat" if they wear clothing that was worn by their killers in a war 70+ years ago.

I disagree.

If you believe that ANYONE'S clothing is a "psychological threat" because of what you interpret from it, you need to understand that maybe you don't interpret it the same way others people do, or that just because you don't like what was done, doesn't mean that it should be illegal.
Unless a direct threat is clearly stated, it should not be illegal.

You also said "If any form of speech can provoke others to retaliate, then it can be considered as hate speech which shouldn't be defended"

You do know that ANY form of speech can provoke ANY kind of person to retaliate against it.

I am retaliating against your claim right now, should that make your previous argument illegal?
Suppose I am an individual who believes that the word "blue" is terrible, and I find it highly offensive, and I will retaliate against every person who uses it. Does that mean the word "blue" is hate speech? Should we ban the word "blue"?

This debate was handed to the contender in round one due to a very weak argument offered by the instigator. Although the contender successfully rebutted the instigator I would have liked to see his argument tighter and more on point because as is, the instigator still has a little room to work in round two.